| Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
|
|
Mr. Raynsford: Perhaps it would help the Committee if I briefly explain the significance of clause 19 and its effect before considering amendment No. 68. Clause 19 enables the Secretary of State to direct the Electoral Commission to give advice on electoral areas and the total number of members to be elected to a regional assembly. Subsection (1) makes it clear that the Secretary of State can only seek advice for regions in which a referendum has been held, and for which it is proposed to establish an assembly. The amendment would, instead, enable the Secretary of State to give such a direction to the Electoral Commission when considering whether to cause a referendum to be held. Taken with amendment No. 69, it would oblige the Secretary of State to seek that advice before a referendum were held. Mr. Hammond: Perhaps the Minister could clear one thing up. This is an elaborate procedure to allow the Secretary of State to direct the Electoral Commission to give him advice. Is the Secretary of Column Number: 273 State unable to ask for advice from the Electoral Commission in the absence of a statutory provision in primary legislation?Mr. Raynsford: We understand that we require this statutory cover to instruct the Electoral Commission to do the work necessary to prepare electoral arrangements in a region that votes for an elected regional assembly in a referendum. That could, of course, be contained in the primary legislation that gives effect to elected regional assemblies, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that there would be a time consequence, which is why we have included provisions in the Bill. Once a referendum has been held and a region has indicated that it wants an elected regional assembly, the Government will introduce substantive legislation to make that possible. At the same time, having programmed in its many other responsibilities, the Electoral Commission could begin considering the region's electoral boundaries. That would allow for the proper, sensible and expeditious handling of all the issues, without unreasonable delay. Mr. Streeter: How long does the Minister expect such an exercise to take the Electoral Commission? It is extremely complicated to start again with a completely different map, particularly if people cannot even be guided by existing parliamentary boundaries. How long will that take? Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point. The Electoral Commission will clearly need to take account of the region's new local government framework, and it would be inappropriate to reach conclusions about electoral boundaries without regard to that structure. That is why the hon. Gentleman's earlier suggestion that the work be brought forward and carried out simultaneously with other parts of the process is clearly inappropriate. Under the proper timetable, the boundary committee will consider the relevant local government organisation for the region, the people of the region will then determine in a referendum whether they want an elected regional assembly and the consequent reorganisation of local government, and the Electoral Commission will then consider electoral arrangements in the region. I would not want to give an estimate of the time required, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it will be a reasonably time-consuming activity. That is why we are making provision in the Bill to allow the commission's work to be carried out after a referendum and before legislation is in place to enable the elected regional assembly to come into existence. Mr. Streeter: I am following the Minister's arguments carefully. His answers are always helpful, and he has given us a clear time scale. He is saying that the first referendum will be in autumn 2004, and the commission could not possibly finish its work until spring 2005. Elections for the new regional assemblies would then take place at the beginning of 2006, at the earliest, and assemblies would be in place by 2007. Is that the kind of time scale that we are working on? Mr. Raynsford: Yes, it is. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if we hold a referendum in autumn 2004, we Column Number: 274 will need to pass substantive legislation to allow for the election of a regional assembly. That will take a substantial period of time after the referendum, although I would not want to be too precise about the dates. However, the hon. Gentleman is very much in the right ball park with the dates that he gave for the creation of an elected regional assembly. We do not want to delay matters even further by waiting until the substantive legislation is passed before giving the Electoral Commission the power to do its work. It is right to give it powers in the Bill, so that it can get on with its preparatory work on electoral boundaries while the substantive legislation is being considered. That all makes good sense.The only possible argument against that approach, which the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge deployed, is that the electorate should know the details before they vote in a referendum. I shall now tell him why that is not necessary. The local government review must be completed because it will involve a fundamental change to the structure of local government, and there is no way of knowing the outcome. It could involve a unitary structure that is based on a single county, or several unitary structures that are based on different districts. Until the boundary committee carries out the review, however, there is no way of knowing, despite the Opposition's scaremongering and their suggestion that our agenda is to abolish the counties. We have made it clear that we have no such agenda. It will be up to the boundary committee to determine the appropriate structure for local government in a region. That must be determined and made clear to the electorate before they vote in a referendum. Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the Government have a view on the range of appropriate population sizes for unitary authorities? Mr. Raynsford: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has done his homework and looked at our draft guidance, in which we make it clear that the boundary committee's objectives would be to address the effectiveness of local government and its representative role covering appropriate communities. We do not specify any figures; we say only that they must be of a sufficient size to be effective. That is a steer, but there is no precise indication: we do not believe that it is right to tie down the boundary committee with arbitrary figures—unlike the Opposition, who love them, as we know from an earlier debate this morning.
12.15 pmMr. Hammond: That is not true. This is a very interesting matter. Is the Minister saying that he would be content to see a proposal for Kent, for example, to become a unitary authority in its own right and deliver all services at that level, given the size of that county? Mr. Raynsford: It is not, in the first instance, for me to take a view on this. The boundary committee must conclude on it, and then make recommendations to Ministers. I would want to look very closely at its recommendations. However, the hon. Gentleman will know from the way that we have set out this guidance Column Number: 275 that there is no preconception that would prevent that particular outcome, if the boundary committee were to recommend it.Mr. Swayne: How would the Minister respond to a recommendation that a county should be a unitary authority, given that the proposed north-east region is smaller than some counties? Mr. Raynsford: As I stressed in earlier debates, when I was talking about local government—this also applies to the regions—one of the key issues is that they must be of a sufficient size to be effective, but the other key point is that there must be a recognition of regional identity. There is a strong sense of regional identity in the north-east. I do not think that any Committee members would deny that hon. Members from the north-east have a clear sense of the separate characteristics of their region and that they want that to be recognised. That is why it is appropriate for such areas to be regions, even though they are smaller than many others. There are enormous variations in other countries. In Germany, the Länder range from huge areas such as North Rhine-Westphalia to individual cities such as Hamburg. In Spain, there are also huge differences in size between the large and the small regions. In all countries, a balance is struck between what is an appropriate area in terms of recognising local and regional identity and what is an appropriate size to ensure effectiveness and efficiency. Mr. Hammond rose—
Matthew Green rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. Mr. Hammond: The Minister's logic is inexorably taking him towards the position that he would have no objection in principle to a proposal from the boundary committee that the whole of the north-east region should be a single unitary authority, because that would be a smaller unitary authority than, for example, unitary Kent. Is not the Minister disappearing up his own logic, so to speak? Mr. Raynsford: I am most certainly doing no such thing. I have stressed the importance of local and regional identity. It may well be the case that the county of Kent is considered to be suitable to be a unitary authority—although parts of it are already organised into unitary authorities, so it would not be possible to have a wholly unitary Kent, because those already in unitary Medway would not be amused by that prospect. However, there are great differences in the north-east between, for example, rural Northumberland and Teesside. There are significant variations, and we would not regard it as appropriate for there to be a single unitary authority covering the whole of that area, especially as there is also a large number of unitary authorities in the north-east region. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing his hypothetical argument to the point at which he is also at risk of disappearing up the alleyway of false logic. Column Number: 276
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2002 | Prepared 17 December 2002 |
